Read on Twitter
There’s been some nice work recently that has taken a critical look at the theory and practice of preregistration. Here’s what I think are some key articles. (Plus my own wee contribution!)
(Thread, 1/9)
(Thread, 1/9)
Devezer et al. (2020). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform.
https://doi.org/10.1101%2F2020.04.26.048306
(2/9)
https://doi.org/10.1101%2F2020.04.26.048306
(2/9)
Donkin (2020). Is preregistration worthwhile?
(3/9)
(3/9)
Donkin & Szollosi (2020). Unpacking the disagreement.
https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/unpacking-the-disagreement-guest-post-by-donkin-and-szollosi/
(4/9)
https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/unpacking-the-disagreement-guest-post-by-donkin-and-szollosi/
(4/9)
Navarro (2019). Paths in strange spaces: A comment on preregistration.
https://doi.org/10.31234%2Fosf.io%2Fwxn58
(5/9)
https://doi.org/10.31234%2Fosf.io%2Fwxn58
(5/9)
Pham & Oh (2020). Preregistration is neither sufficient nor necessary for good science.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1209
(6/9)
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1209
(6/9)
Rubin (2020). Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?
https://doi.org/10.20982%2Ftqmp.16.4.p376
(7/9)
https://doi.org/10.20982%2Ftqmp.16.4.p376
(7/9)
Szollosi et al. (2019). Is preregistration worthwhile?
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2019.11.009
(8/9)
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2019.11.009
(8/9)
Szollosi & Donkin (2019). Arrested theory development: The misguided distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research.
https://doi.org/10.31234%2Fosf.io%2Fsuzej
(9/9)
https://doi.org/10.31234%2Fosf.io%2Fsuzej
(9/9)
I've also been reminded that the Psychonomic Society’s discussion on preregistration has five excellent blog posts on the issue. There is a list of them at the end of @STWorg’s post here: https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/avoiding-nimitz-hill-with-more-than-a-little-red-book-summing-up-psprereg/
